Webmaster wrote:No one is being banned, and while some of the problems were one sided, it was also a two way street.

Basically, just asking everyone to play nice...

I am always happy to play nice. My post brought up scientific issues, but nobody responded to them with relevant science-related comments. The comments made were directed at me, my motivations, etc. Maybe someone who is capable of an intelligent discussion will come along eventually.

Quoted: "The 1990 University of Wisconsin Smoking BanUniversity of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala demanded a smoking ban covering all university facilities, including residence halls and graduate student apartments. The Alliance Party, which opposed the smoking ban, won a landslide victory in the student government election. The Tobacco Institute hireling who prepared the report, David T. Scheler of Diversified Communications Industries, demonstrated their hostility by saying, "Carol Thompson, a radical smokers' rights activist, unfortunately was present to voice her opposition to the ban," and cited a statement that was no more radical than what a vast multitude of smokers have voiced, that it's like Nazi Germany, as evidence of my supposed undesireability. The Tobacco Institute's real goal was to co-opt real smokers' rights advocacy with unctuous, corporate-funded phony smokers' rights, with a false pretense of opposition that never goes too deep, so that the anti-smokers can get away with their smoking bans with a minimum of fuss. (Wisconsin's Proposed Campus Smoking Ban. Prepared by Diversified Communications Services, David T. Scheler, Inc., for Dan Nelson, Tobacco Institute Regional Vice President, Region IV. Nov. 5, 1990.) Shalala's career was subsequently enhanced by her appointment as US Health and Human Services Secretary under President Clinton, where she anointed Jeffrey Koplan as CDC Director.

Obviously there are some underlying motives for your passion. Taking a wild guess that this is THE CarolAnn providing us with all of this entertainment. Spent a good hour or so reading this ridiculous website. I'm all for a good conspiracy, don't get me wrong, but this is going a little too far. Anyone who knows anything about conspiracy realizes that the Skull and Bones is a feeder group for more worldly NWO groups like the ones found at Bohemian grove. Yes, I've done a little research into these types of things. To claim that all of the tobacco executives are anti-smoking is puzzling to say the least. Why wouldn't they have banned smoking like they have other drugs? If everyone is supposedly involved in this conspiracy, why haven't they stopped producing the product? If they were truly Nazis I think they'd want people to smoke more...oh, but I forgot I'm supposed to believe that smoking isn't bad for you. It must be HPV that makes me hack up a lung every morning...well, I have had enough for now, time to smoke a cigarette.

T-Hawk Yooper wrote:Quoted: "The 1990 University of Wisconsin Smoking BanUniversity of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala demanded a smoking ban covering all university facilities, including residence halls and graduate student apartments. The Alliance Party, which opposed the smoking ban, won a landslide victory in the student government election. The Tobacco Institute hireling who prepared the report, David T. Scheler of Diversified Communications Industries, demonstrated their hostility by saying, "Carol Thompson, a radical smokers' rights activist, unfortunately was present to voice her opposition to the ban," and cited a statement that was no more radical than what a vast multitude of smokers have voiced, that it's like Nazi Germany, as evidence of my supposed undesireability. The Tobacco Institute's real goal was to co-opt real smokers' rights advocacy with unctuous, corporate-funded phony smokers' rights, with a false pretense of opposition that never goes too deep, so that the anti-smokers can get away with their smoking bans with a minimum of fuss. (Wisconsin's Proposed Campus Smoking Ban. Prepared by Diversified Communications Services, David T. Scheler, Inc., for Dan Nelson, Tobacco Institute Regional Vice President, Region IV. Nov. 5, 1990.) Shalala's career was subsequently enhanced by her appointment as US Health and Human Services Secretary under President Clinton, where she anointed Jeffrey Koplan as CDC Director.

Obviously there are some underlying motives for your passion. Taking a wild guess that this is THE CarolAnn providing us with all of this entertainment. Spent a good hour or so reading this ridiculous website. I'm all for a good conspiracy, don't get me wrong, but this is going a little too far. Anyone who knows anything about conspiracy realizes that the Skull and Bones is a feeder group for more worldly NWO groups like the ones found at Bohemian grove. Yes, I've done a little research into these types of things. To claim that all of the tobacco executives are anti-smoking is puzzling to say the least. Why wouldn't they have banned smoking like they have other drugs? If everyone is supposedly involved in this conspiracy, why haven't they stopped producing the product? If they were truly Nazis I think they'd want people to smoke more...oh, but I forgot I'm supposed to believe that smoking isn't bad for you. It must be HPV that makes me hack up a lung every morning...well, I have had enough for now, time to smoke a cigarette.

To quote myself: "The anti-smoking conspiracy began over a century ago. Skull & Bones members ring-led the creation of the American Tobacco Trust, to gather all the companies under anti-smoker control. But they knew that they couldn't just take over the tobacco companies and shut them down, because others would simply enter the field. So, they also created and built up enemies to persecute tobacco, particlarly the American Cancer Society, the Harvard School of Public Health, and the American Heart Association, and used these as proxies to create and control the federal health establishment (the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute, et al.) to manufacture fraudulent pseudo-science to deceive the public at taxpayer expense. The anti-smoker-controlled tobacco companies merely put up a phony pretense of fighting the anti-smoker-controlled "health" lobbies, and purposely throw lawsuits (that is, to those brought by the "right" plaintiffs) in order to financially intimidate potential entrants away from the tobacco industry."

"Philip Morris/Altria is a particular flagrant example of conspiratorial control. The anti-smokers used it to scoop up the remaining companies that hadn't been sucked into the Tobacco Trust, and they built it up to serve as the lead Judas Goat to betray the rest. J. Russell Forgan, who later wrote the act creating the Central Intelligence Agency, began investing Marshall Field 3d's money in the tobacco industy in the late 1920s, and he led the financing of Philip Morris's expansion from the 1940s to 1960s, when he specifically recruited insitutional investors. And, from 1960 to 1981, the stepson of the head of the American Cancer Society was on its board of directors!"

I've asked CarolAnn early on in this thread to help us understand her passion against the anti-smoking crusades that have been taking place for the last bunch of years. I haven't yet gotten any reasonable response back to that inquiry.

T-Hawk Yooper may have stumbled onto something when he 'discovered' one Carol Thompson.

A simple Google search (I'm a big fan of Google) for '"Carol Thompson" smoker' produces a bunch of hits. One shows a 'Carol AS Thompson'. Other hits such as:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/317/7170/1423show the same level of, I'll call it, heated passion against the anti-smoking that our CarolAnn has shown on this thread. Some of the hits go back many years, some are somewhat current.

I'm guessing our CarolAnn and Carol Thompson are the same person as the T-Hawkster suggests.

If nothing else CarolAnn, you are steadfast in what you believe in.

That said…I'm really such a softy...If someone is in the least bit nice to me I'll do most anything for them and they’ll have my undivided attention. On the other hand if I perceive any hostility I immediately get in a defensive posture and it's an uphill battle to win me over...even to the point of 'coming back down' to a neutral position.

To make me even begin to look at and examine your arguments you have to stop pushing me away with the type of rhetoric that you've been using. It just backs me up against the wall and I want to fight back, not listen to or reason with you.

Case in point…I haven’t even begun to think about looking at what you support because we’re still trying to figure out what shape the negotiating table will be…(that’s an old Vietnam War thing for you youngsters out there (under 55)).

So, I'll ask again, where is your drive for this coming from? Where does this 'steadfastness' come from? What's kept you so active on this subject for so many years? What are you about? Maybe after I (we) understand why you're at where you're at we can begin a debate on the facts.

But to constantly attack will never win anyone over to your side...you can be right as rain on everything but you'll lose any possible support for your side and very possibly build support for the other side.

I'm guessing Hugodog, the original poster, would like some level headed discussion on the subject. Unless we've all been so argumentative that we've discussed him and turned him off entirely to joining in any debate...he’s probably ‘left the building’. He might also be thinking... “what kind of monster did I create?’.

Everyone is welcome to do their own research exploring the history of similar postings, etc. Please tread carefully though. Digging up and posting any personal information about another member is a sticking point, one that we've taken action on before.

Because I haven't seen much more than what is found on the website she provided a link to everyone is OK so far. I also feel a reference to a medical journal is rather appropriate in this discussion. Just please make sure no personal information winds up in this thread.

kmartell wrote:I've asked CarolAnn early on in this thread to help us understand her passion against the anti-smoking crusades that have been taking place for the last bunch of years. I haven't yet gotten any reasonable response back to that inquiry.

T-Hawk Yooper may have stumbled onto something when he 'discovered' one Carol Thompson.

A simple Google search (I'm a big fan of Google) for '"Carol Thompson" smoker' produces a bunch of hits. One shows a 'Carol AS Thompson'. Other hits such as:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/317/7170/1423show the same level of, I'll call it, heated passion against the anti-smoking that our CarolAnn has shown on this thread. Some of the hits go back many years, some are somewhat current.

I'm guessing our CarolAnn and Carol Thompson are the same person as the T-Hawkster suggests.

If nothing else CarolAnn, you are steadfast in what you believe in.

That said…I'm really such a softy...If someone is in the least bit nice to me I'll do most anything for them and they’ll have my undivided attention. On the other hand if I perceive any hostility I immediately get in a defensive posture and it's an uphill battle to win me over...even to the point of 'coming back down' to a neutral position.

To make me even begin to look at and examine your arguments you have to stop pushing me away with the type of rhetoric that you've been using. It just backs me up against the wall and I want to fight back, not listen to or reason with you.

Case in point…I haven’t even begun to think about looking at what you support because we’re still trying to figure out what shape the negotiating table will be…(that’s an old Vietnam War thing for you youngsters out there (under 55)).

So, I'll ask again, where is your drive for this coming from? Where does this 'steadfastness' come from? What's kept you so active on this subject for so many years? What are you about? Maybe after I (we) understand why you're at where you're at we can begin a debate on the facts.

But to constantly attack will never win anyone over to your side...you can be right as rain on everything but you'll lose any possible support for your side and very possibly build support for the other side.

I'm guessing Hugodog, the original poster, would like some level headed discussion on the subject. Unless we've all been so argumentative that we've discussed him and turned him off entirely to joining in any debate...he’s probably ‘left the building’. He might also be thinking... “what kind of monster did I create?’.

In other words, you're trying to insinuate that there must be something wrong with people if they object to being systematic smeared, defamed, and persecuted with the intent of committing genocide against their culture, and having YOUR ignorant and specious beliefs and abhorrent so-called values shoved down their throats against their will.

** CarolAnn, you had been warned, statements such as the one that was removed will not be allowed! **

Smoking band.. just another right taken away from Americans.. or is Non smokers the only ones that have rights.. they tried taking away booze from people years ago and speakeasies were born. Are Americans that smoke suppose to have under ground restarants/bars so they can enjoy a smoke after a meal with their coffee? People talking about 2nd hand smoke but that is not the only thing linked to lung cancer but it seems to be the easiest to blame. I have never heard of anyone dieing because someone was driving their cars while smoking or after smoking. Drinking kills brain cells and livers. Lets out law that all together too while we are at it. It worked so well the first time around.What rights are next to be take away from us? Personally I am sickened by the smell of some perfumes and aftershaves. The smell of that gives me a head ache and makes my eyes water.I had to come back and add.... The smell of booze on someone's clothing and breath also makes me sick. Breath mints don't work lol..

Last edited by countrygirl49 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why does everyone seem to think comparing smoking to drinking makes sense. Once again, unless I take a drink of alcohol and then spit it all over you, they are different. If I choose to drink and am not an idiot (drunk driving) how exactly does having a drink have any effect on you? If you choose to smoke at home, outside, etc. and don't subject your children or anyone else who doesn't want to be around it I don't have a problem with it.

It is already illegal to drink in excess and drive home. So, based on your argument it makes perfect sense to ban smoking in public places. It becomes illegal when it has a negative impact on others (driving drunk is the negative impact too).

Smoking Band is that a red hot Jazz band or is it Rock and Roll ? ? ? ?

Oh, you mean Smoking Ban ! Now I see what this is all about ! !

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

What i was getting at with the smoking v drinking is.... If someone has a few drinks then drives.. they can kill someone fast and with one quick strike.. a smoker does not do that ever. Now they are telling smokers you can not smoke in your car in the parking lot where you work.. even if the windows are rolled up. So now what we do in our cars while parked on break is pretty much being out lawed. As I said.. another right taken away from people is all.

countrygirl, never say never. I've seen some pretty stupid moves by smokers driving down the road. Ever accidentally dropped a cigarette while driving? There are other examples, and although these things are not on the same level as dui, (and I am aware the comparison may be far-fetched to some) things do happen.

Please understand...I am a smoker, have been for 34+years now. I don't agree with all of the perceptions in regards to 2nd hand smoke, although I do know that many health issues are, indeed, caused by smoking. I have never been so naive as to think the surgeon general has lied to me all these years...lol. Personally, I hope the ban doesn't pass...for purely selfish reasons of course...but if it does, that is something I can also accept. I just think you are a little naive to press along with an argument that smoking has never and will never be the cause of traffic accidents. Perhaps it's because I currently live in a very congested driving area that I see the driving issues on a regular basis, but I do see them.

Anyways....I think it would going a little far to ban smoking inside ones POV. I'm afraid I would have to make a spot in my weekly budget for repeated fines if that occurs. But the city bans in places of business, workplaces, etc...well, if that happens it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it. Personally, I think it should be up to each individual business owner, but if it happens wherever I should happen to live, I'll deal with it.

Kerry Tobin wrote:Why does everyone seem to think comparing smoking to drinking makes sense. Once again, unless I take a drink of alcohol and then spit it all over you, they are different. If I choose to drink and am not an idiot (drunk driving) how exactly does having a drink have any effect on you? If you choose to smoke at home, outside, etc. and don't subject your children or anyone else who doesn't want to be around it I don't have a problem with it.

It is already illegal to drink in excess and drive home. So, based on your argument it makes perfect sense to ban smoking in public places. It becomes illegal when it has a negative impact on others (driving drunk is the negative impact too).

It's because the mass media don't allow anything of substance to be said on smokers' side. So they desperately improvise something to defend themselves with from that intellectually barren fare.

kkmar wrote:countrygirl, never say never. I've seen some pretty stupid moves by smokers driving down the road. Ever accidentally dropped a cigarette while driving? There are other examples, and although these things are not on the same level as dui, (and I am aware the comparison may be far-fetched to some) things do happen.

Please understand...I am a smoker, have been for 34+years now. I don't agree with all of the perceptions in regards to 2nd hand smoke, although I do know that many health issues are, indeed, caused by smoking. I have never been so naive as to think the surgeon general has lied to me all these years...lol. Personally, I hope the ban doesn't pass...for purely selfish reasons of course...but if it does, that is something I can also accept. I just think you are a little naive to press along with an argument that smoking has never and will never be the cause of traffic accidents. Perhaps it's because I currently live in a very congested driving area that I see the driving issues on a regular basis, but I do see them.

Anyways....I think it would going a little far to ban smoking inside ones POV. I'm afraid I would have to make a spot in my weekly budget for repeated fines if that occurs. But the city bans in places of business, workplaces, etc...well, if that happens it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it. Personally, I think it should be up to each individual business owner, but if it happens wherever I should happen to live, I'll deal with it.

People who get their information from the National Library of Medicine instead of the mass media are the smart ones who know that the Surgeons General are liars. The naive people are those who believe in the propaganda.

It isn't the government that is banning smoking in your car in your work parking lot (unless that parking lot is a public garage). That would be your employer, motivated by their insurance company. From what I've seen, even CarolAnn admits smokers have a higher rate of disease, whether that be from smoking or the viruses.

Where I used to work the company banned smoking on all property it owned and charged an extra $100 a month for insurance if you smoked. They did provide free support if you wanted to quit though. None of those decisions were based on not liking smokers, they were purely cost motivated.

Well carolann, you may go ahead and call me naive or whatever name you choose. I really take little stock in personal attacks of any sort on the public forums. The fact remains that I know, at least in my own personal case, that it most definitely IS SMOKING that affects my health...smoking that is the primary cause of the COPD that has plagued me for the past 8-10 years. I know this because I actually was able to quit for 3 1/2 years at one point and the respiratory issues went away. Amazing, isn't it? So you can go ahead with your anti-smoking nazi, HPP, virus and bacteria stands all you want if it makes you feel better. But you simply cannot truthfully state that the surgeon general's statements are false or that smoking isn't harmful. Maybe some of what you state is fact. Maybe those virus's and bacteria are the cause of some of the illness that smoking, and second hand smoke, is blamed for. I don't doubt that, but I know it isn't all.

I am not so naive to be unaware as to what I am doing to my health by continuing to smoke. I also know that I have a true addiction to nicotine...and many people would argue that as well. I like to smoke, period and I would prefer not to have the smoking bans in place. But carolann, the way you continue to present your argument is doing your "cause" absolutely no good whatsoever. You cannot bully people into taking your side on a subject. When you choose to approach people in a condescending or hateful manner, it is unrealistic to expect to be taken seriously in your argument on any issue.

It isn't the government that is banning smoking in your car in your work parking lot (unless that parking lot is a public garage). That would be your employer, motivated by their insurance company. From what I've seen, even CarolAnn admits smokers have a higher rate of disease, whether that be from smoking or the viruses.

Where I used to work the company banned smoking on all property it owned and charged an extra $100 a month for insurance if you smoked. They did provide free support if you wanted to quit though. None of those decisions were based on not liking smokers, they were purely cost motivated.

Those fraudulent smoking cost studies are based on deliberately using defective studies to falsely blame smoking for diseases that are actually caused by infection, too. It also ignores the reason smokers have higher rates of various illnesses, namely because a higher proportion of smokers are in the lower socioeconomic classes, and nonsmokers in those classes also have higher rates those diseases that are really caused by infection.

And health insurance is a gigantic scam. ""Today, the tax code creates a significant tax advan­tage for those with employer-sponsored coverage by exempting the total value of the benefit from a worker’s taxable income. This distorts the health insurance market by favoring coverage obtained through the place of work and stifles the advance­ment of other coverage options... The current federal tax code offers a variety of tax preferences relating to health care. In 2004, these tax benefits—which include employer health care bene­fits for workers and retirees, deductions of health care premiums for the self-employed, health expen­ditures through flexible spending accounts, and tax deductions for allowable health expenditures— accounted for $188.5 billion in forgone federal rev­enue. Of that amount, $122.2 billion was associ­ated with personal income tax exclusions. By far the largest portion of the personal income tax exclusion ($101 billion) [53.6%] went to the employer exclusion for employee health care benefits."

And who makes up for that $188.5 billion in forgone federal rev­enue? The uninsured, who don't get a tax break. It's a gigantic subsidy for the insurance industry that tilts the playing field in their favor. So, they've tilted the playing field in favor of those who want to impose a totalitarian dictatorship over our personal lives.

And when they've brainwashed the suckers that they can't possibly survive without health insurance, they take their money and spew lies, nonsense and charlatanism in their faces.

And it's not really true that they're opposed to socialized medicine. After they've sucked all the profits possible out of people when they're younger, they're happy to dump the retirees on the taxpayers. Just like CUNA Mutual did to their retirees a few weeks ago. They don't want people to know the truth that it's really the so-called "healthy living" people who are the biggest lifetime burden, not the working peoples' health costs. Table 1 gives the bottom line: At age 20, smokers' lifetime costs will total 220k Euros, obese peoples' costs will total 250k Euros, and the "Healthy Living" will cost 281k Euros.

kkmar wrote:Well carolann, you may go ahead and call me naive or whatever name you choose. I really take little stock in personal attacks of any sort on the public forums. The fact remains that I know, at least in my own personal case, that it most definitely IS SMOKING that affects my health...smoking that is the primary cause of the COPD that has plagued me for the past 8-10 years. I know this because I actually was able to quit for 3 1/2 years at one point and the respiratory issues went away. Amazing, isn't it? So you can go ahead with your anti-smoking nazi, HPP, virus and bacteria stands all you want if it makes you feel better. But you simply cannot truthfully state that the surgeon general's statements are false or that smoking isn't harmful. Maybe some of what you state is fact. Maybe those virus's and bacteria are the cause of some of the illness that smoking, and second hand smoke, is blamed for. I don't doubt that, but I know it isn't all.

I am not so naive to be unaware as to what I am doing to my health by continuing to smoke. I also know that I have a true addiction to nicotine...and many people would argue that as well. I like to smoke, period and I would prefer not to have the smoking bans in place. But carolann, the way you continue to present your argument is doing your "cause" absolutely no good whatsoever. You cannot bully people into taking your side on a subject. When you choose to approach people in a condescending or hateful manner, it is unrealistic to expect to be taken seriously in your argument on any issue.

Oh, I see the light. It's not the anti-smokers with their unceasing barrage of mass media lies and hate propaganda who are bullying people, it's their victims who are trying to fight back! This is not the type of opinion that freedom-loving Americans espouse. It is the view of apologists of a totalitarian dictatorship.

I can too state that the Surgeons General are liars! They're automatically guilty of scientific fraud for ignoring those 50-plus studies on HPV and lung cancer, and they've committed the same type of fraud in every subject they've spouted their opinions upon. You must believe that The Authorities Are Never Wrong! This is also not the type of opinion that freedom-loving Americans espouse. It is the view of apologists of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Airway obstruction in never smokers: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. BR Celli, RJ Halbert, RJ Nordyke, B Schau. Am J Med 2005 Dec;118(12):1364-1372. "Never smokers represented 42% of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey population aged 30 to 80 years, with obstruction prevalence of 91 per 1000. Never smokers accounted for 4.56 million cases of obstruction, or 23% of the total burden."

And if people hadn't been such suckers as to believe in Surgeon General reports based on lifestyle questionnaires and demanded research on the role of infection instead, COPD might now be a vanishing disease.

I may not be the smartest person in the world but I know that a lot of what causes lung cancer has been ignored or pushed aside. Does anyone remember way back when a lot of cows and people in Wisconsin got really sick.. hoofs falling off.. hair falling out.. babies really sick as well as mothers and anyone that drank farm fresh milk? They shot and killed most of the sick cows and closed down farms.. only to find out that what was making people so sick was that the feed mill had put (rat poison pellets) into the cows feed.. same color pellets that were suppose to be in the feed. A movie was made from that and rat poison stays in fat cells and is passed down from mother to child and from that child to it's child.. threw the fat cells. Also there is that Insolation thing. Also a lot of people got sick and got cancer that lived around large power lines. Also weed killers and bug sprays have poisoned us over the earlier years.The way I see it is..... we were all exposed to something at one time or another that can trigger cancer cells to grow at any given time and it really can not be blamed on one single thing. Cancer type cells is what turns a single cell into a human and it then shuts off after we are formed.. or is suppose to anyway.From what I saw years ago in a HBO special.. not even all the researchers can agree on what causes cancers. What it boils down to is that many things brake down our D.N.A strands as we go threw life. and if you are ment to get cancer you will no matter what you do. A simple allergy can trigger cancer cells to start to grow. I am not the smartest person in the world but I do know that picking out just one thing to blame lung cancer on is just not the right thing to do. People ARE turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to other causes.

Illinois has a smoking ban. As a non smoker I like it. It has brought a lot of controversy here as well as it sounds like there. Someone went as far as holding a smoking party at his auto body garage and advertised it. No authorites showed up but he proved his point it was his garage on his privately owned land.

I am a business owner (retail) and I sell ALCOHOL. I like when customers are not in my face blowing their smoke. Some people are rude in that way, most aren't. I like going out to eat and not having to choose smoking or non. My daughter has asthma so we would try to choose well ventelated places but now we don't.

Our law reads that one must smoke 15 feet from any opening to a building. May it be a door, window or drive thru. When the law was first passed people were HOT!!! Bar owners were upset, etc. Some got creative and built patios with smoking areas. I live in a college town (SIU) big bar town. Everyone is surviving. Yes, pain in the butt for smokers though. People push the limits, but now that the newness has died it is easier to swallow for the smokers. There are still bars down here that allow smoking. Is it leagal?? No, but they do it anyway. I still go there, it is my choice.

Not sure if my post really means anything but I wanted to let you know what we are going through.

Life is not measured by the amount of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

Themacs...I, for one, appreciate your input, an uncomplicated opinion without a lot of hype thrown in. The point you made is what I was initially trying to say when I jumped into the craziness a few days ago. Smoking bans, if implemented, are very livable for both sides of the issue...it is simply a matter of having respect for the people around you.

And to everyone else here...when I registered here last week and got in this little convo I had no intention of "poking the bear", as it were...just wanted to liven things up a little! lol I tried to let it go early on in the conversation, but the bear kept poking back...hard to ignore.

My apologies to all, and I look forward to seeing your town in a couple of months...(from today, actually!)

I see that this is quite a touchy subject, in which I thought I'd be a part of it. I AM A SMOKER & a Bar owner. Does the smoking Ban concern me, ABSOLUTELY. Do I truly feel that it would affect the Bar Business, ABSOLUTELY. Do I feel that it would make a strong impact in a small town, ABSOLUTELY. Do I feel that my rights as a person, business owner will be infringed on, ABSOLUTELY. Do I think that I should have a choice as to whether I would have a Smoking/Non Smoking Tavern, ABSOLUTELY. We live in a country that choices are becoming very minimal, we the people are allowing it. I could post a sign that states "This is a Smoking Facility", you have the choice to enter the establishment and you will also have the choice to apply there for a job IF YOU CHOOSE. When Illinois went smoke free, yes there was a lot of unhappy people & they have since adjusted, it doesn't mean that they were happy about it. The population in their small towns are 30 times larger than Tomahawk. If 20% of their smokers quit going out to the bars, they still have 80% of their customer base that is still quite a bit of customers. Losing 20% of your customer base in Tomahawk would kill your business (75% of my customers smoke). And you really can't compare the effect in a college town. They are younger & haven't been smoking very long, so they could easily quit. We are adults, we should be able to do adult things. We start this anti-smoking thing because we are concerned about the children smoking. However, Wisconsin allows the Parent in your family to give their child (no matter what age) a beer or a cocktail in the bar if they buy it for them. When the smokers all quit and the tax revenue from cigarettes are depleted and they continue to raise the alcohol taxes and the drinkers no longer exsist, where are they going to get that money from next?

First, CarolAnn... If you are going to tell people to go get information from a source, you might want to make sure that source supports your argument. Do a search at the National Library of Medicine for smoking once and tell me what you find? Oh, I think it specifically says there is no way around it, smoking is harmful. Result #4 specifically deals with second hand smoke.

Countrygirl49, I may not be the smartest person either, which is why I try to go to sources smarter than me in areas I don't understand. We're pretty good at identifying carcinogens now. Basically, they expose mice/rats and eventually other primates to specific chemicals in controlled environments. It's pretty easy to tell when animals routinely develop the same types of cancer when exposed to the same chemicals that the chemical probably has something to do with it. I work in a research facility and I can tell you that they are very careful and their results pretty precise.

Racefanatic, I find it interesting that even as close as Appleton all the bar owners threw a fit when the smoking ban went in place. Many argued business was down but payed their bills from the till so they didn't have any idea how much money they were actually making anyway. They all failed to mention that a brand new, two story bar opened at the same time (one that even I predicted was going to drive others out of business). Funny thing, I don't know of a single bar that closed yet. Even stranger, the city is having difficulties because they don't have enough liquor licenses available to meet demand. Seems there are still a large number of places that think they can make money too... I've seen studies that have shown increases in business once about a year has passed.

Kerry Tobin - your observation of Appleton, hmm how much bigger is this city from Tomahawk? Again, college town?? Compare the actual population - to how many bars are in Appleton/Surrounding area, then compare the number of taverns in Tomahawk/Surrounding area to the residents (cause we can't count the Tourism that we have lost). It appears that you feel that Bar owners are always drinking/drunks therefore they are less smart or attentive to how much $$$ actually go in their till? I know exactly what goes in my till, I am aware of how many of my customers are smokers and I am aware of what kind of effect that it would have on my business. If and when this smoking ban takes place, It will affect this town tremendously. We as a town will suffer. How many taverns would not make it, how many jobs would be lost...just the revenue alone in this community. You may look at it as wasted revenue, but the bar owners and their employees spend the money they make in this community too. I am not just looking at the picture for me, I am looking at the entire community.

Don't assuming I have any opinion about bar owners. It is an unfortunate reality that too many small business owners don't take the time to keep proper books and often put themselves out of business by simply pulling cash from the till to pay bills, employees and even themselves. However, part of the reason I know about the situation in Appleton is because I was discussing opening a bar with a few friends. We actually were trying to use the smoking ban as an advantage, we figured out a way to modify the building to make an area "outside" specifically for the smokers.

It's like any other business that has a change in the market. The businesses that adapt will survive, those that don't will go the way of the american auto company...

It is also interesting that so many are worried about losing the smokers but fail to account for all those who are more likely to go out if they don't have to deal with smoke. Remember that a majority of the population DOESN'T smoke. Most of the people I know that smoke at bars only smoke when they drink so you won't lose them either. If Tomahawk goes non-smoking I might even consider going out in Tomahawk. Until then, I'd rather stay in Madison, Appleton, Eau Claire, Minneapolis, etc.